Share
Nampogo & Anor v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE No. 246 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 70 (20 April 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] UGHCCD 70
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Musota, J
- Case number
- MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE No. 246 OF 2016
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Musota, J
- Case number
- MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE No. 246 OF 2016
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that since an earlier order for mandamus had already been issued in Miscellaneous Cause No. 48 of 2009, compelling the respondent to pay the applicants the decretal sum with interest, the matter was res judicata. The certificate of order against the Secretary to Treasury dated 11th May 2010 had not been set aside or varied and therefore only required enforcement, not a fresh application for mandamus. Consequently, the present application was dismissed as it could not legally arise on the same facts and claim.
Court disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for mandamus is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
02
Material facts
Parties
Nampogo Robert
Applicant Counsel: Stella NakamyaTumwesigye Moses
Applicant Counsel: Stella NakamyaAttorney General
Respondent Counsel: Geoffrey Madete03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Application for Mandamus
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a fresh application for mandamus can be maintained on the same facts and claim after a previous mandamus order has been issued.
- 02
Whether the matter is res judicata in light of the earlier order for mandamus.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants sought a fresh order of mandamus to compel the respondent to pay the decretal sum with interest, arguing that payment had not been effected despite the earlier order.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the matter was res judicata as an earlier order for mandamus had already been issued in Miscellaneous Cause No. 48 of 2009, and that the current application was not maintainable.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 7, Civil Procedure Act (Cap 71)
A matter that has already been adjudicated upon by a competent court cannot be re-litigated between the same parties on the same issues (res judicata).
- 02
Order 22, Civil Procedure Rules; previous High Court order in Misc. Cause No. 48 of 2009
Once a certificate of order against the government is issued and not set aside or varied, it is enforceable and does not require a fresh mandamus application.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that since an earlier order for mandamus had already been issued in Miscellaneous Cause No. 48 of 2009, compelling the respondent to pay the applicants the decretal sum with interest, the matter was res judicata. The certificate of order against the Secretary to Treasury dated 11th May 2010 had not been set aside or varied and therefore only required enforcement, not a fresh application for mandamus. Consequently, the present application was dismissed as it could not legally arise on the same facts and claim.
Court disposition
application dismissed with costs
- The application for mandamus is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Source and reliance status
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CIVIL DIVISION
MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE No. 246 OF 2016
(*Arising from Misc. Cause No. 48 of 2009* and Complaint No. UHRC 167/2000)
IN AN APPLICATION FOR A PREROGATIVE WRIT OF MADAMUS
1. NAMPOGO ROBERT 2. TUMWESIGYE MOSES :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANTS
*Versus*
ATTORNEY GENERAL ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE MUSOTA STEPHEN
RULING:
This is an application for Mandamus.
However, on perusal of the pleadings and submissions by learned counsel for the applicants, it is apparent that this application arises out of an earlier order for Mandamus in Miscellaneous Cause No. 48 of 2009 which compelled the respondent to pay the applicants the decretal sum with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 13/10/2004.
After the issuance of the said earlier Mandamus order, this matter became res judicata and therefore a fresh application for Mandamus basing on the same facts and claim could not legally arise.
Since the certificate of order against the Secretary to Treasury dated 11th May 2010 has never been varied or set aside, it only requires enforcement. Accordingly this application is dismissed with costs.
I so order.
Stephen Musota
J U D G E
20.04.2017
20.04.2017:-
Ms Stella Nakamya for the Applicant is in Court.
Applicant is not in Court.
Respondent’s representative Mr. Geoffrey Madete in Court.
Milton Court Clerk.
Court:-
Ruling is delivered in Open Court in the presence of:
Mr. Geoffrey Madete for the Respondent.
Ms Stella Nakamya for the Applicant.
Milton Court Clerk.
…………………………………….
Joy Bahinguza Kabagye
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.